It should have never been marketed as an 8-core. It should have been marketed as a 4 core (module) with 8 threads. This would be similar to intel chips since the 8150 does trade blows with the 2500k.

Another thing too is, even though the power efficiency is horrible, that honestly never really mattered to most enthusiasts on here. BD overclocks high, but sucks a lot of power. Similar to netburst. However most enthusiast users (I know I could) could look past this. This would however be a problem for energy efficient users. But I'm sure those users wouldn't be looking into high end enthusiast grade CPU's either.

All in all the architecture has great potential, and I do agree it does need a lot of tweaks to increase IPC and power efficiency. The largest reason bulldozer was considered a failure was because of all the hype behind it, and the branding of the first "8 Core Desktop CPU".

And yes, the price is too high on the parts as it stands. The best buy at this time from the AMD side is probably the 1090T if you are looking for great multithreading.

Bulldozer is an eight core CPU. You wouldn't be arguing about marketing terms if it out performed the 2600k.

As far as power consumption, I have been told that maybe the design did not consider hkmg needing more power than soi

my perspective from the beginning, because I read like hell on the architecture and got one hell of an understanding of it. That this was a 4 core chip capable of running 8 threads.
even reading that AMD is not competing with Intel on SMT but rather CMT.
"IF" AMD stands good on their 10% gain every new gen,where does that make with Intel currant designs? Intel can't just keep adding cores or adding to cores to compete.they gonna bring back the core duo stuff? yeah right.

my opinion is that Intel is gonna realize they just got leap frogged again, and AMD is going to put the hammer down(pile driver)

That BSOD only happens with Steam version of Shogun 2 so you are making a BIG leap to say it is an unstable cpu.

Anyway, I also don't think it is as bad as everyone is making it out to be. There need to be some design improvements and the power usage sucks really badly but it is a step in the right direction, sooner or later we are going to see more and more multithreaded applications, Bulldozer's architecture is going to be well suited to that. They just need to fix some issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poisoner

Bulldozer is an eight core CPU. You wouldn't be arguing about marketing terms if it out performed the 2600k.

As far as power consumption, I have been told that maybe the design did not consider hkmg needing more power than soi

Bulldozer is not clearly an eight core processor. Those module cores are NOT full cores, they share resources. To make things very simple (ie not discussing which parts are shared and which parts are not and why) you can say that each module is like 1.5 cores. This is the primary reason IPC went down.

Most new CPU's have problems like that when they are released due to the operating system not being extensively tested with the newer architecture. This was definitely a problem with the original Phenom's.

No, the problem with the original Phenoms was the TLB bug. Has nothing to do with being on any specific operating system, it was a problem with the architecture itself and was fixed going to the newer CPUs (e.g. Phenom 9500 to 9950, xx00 had TLB bug, xx50 didn't). There are many erratum on CPUs from both Intel and AMD, but they don't cause bluescreens. Something is wrong with Bulldozer.

As far as power consumption, I have been told that maybe the design did not consider hkmg needing more power than soi

I think it's more of the caches that are causing power consumption to rise

3MB of L2 to 8MB of L2
6MB of L3 to 8MB of L3

Is a pretty big jump don't you think

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mygaffer

Bulldozer is not clearly an eight core processor. Those module cores are NOT full cores, they share resources. To make things very simple (ie not discussing which parts are shared and which parts are not and why) you can say that each module is like 1.5 cores. This is the primary reason IPC went down.

The cores aren't shared they each have their own decoder, scheduler, execution units, cache and retireEdited by Seronx - 11/8/11 at 11:23pm

Bulldozer is an eight core CPU. You wouldn't be arguing about marketing terms if it out performed the 2600k.

As far as power consumption, I have been told that maybe the design did not consider hkmg needing more power than soi

Considering bulldozer's "cores" share resources, we cannot call this a true 8 core processor, so why brand it as that? (This is a colossal failure on the marketing department's part, One of the prime sources of all the hype.)

When I see bulldozer, I see AMD's answer to Hyper-Threading. Even if bulldozer outpaced the 2600K, it wouldn't be outpacing it in terms of single threaded performance. I expect an eight core to be 1.5-2x the performance of a similar single threaded performing quad in multithreaded applications. With the way bulldozer is designed, 1 module should be considered 1 core, with two threads. Just like HT.

I'm sorry but AMD clearly knew they had an under performing architecture compared to Intels' 2600 lineup and even the 2500 series. They knew this and still went along with all the hype surrounding bulldozer knowing the whole time performance was a mere 8-12% better than 1100t at stock speeds.

Considering bulldozer's "cores" share resources, we cannot call this a true 8 core processor, so why brand it as that? (This is a colossal failure on the marketing department's part, One of the prime sources of all the hype.)

Bulldozer "cores" do not share resources

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappa

When I see bulldozer, I see AMD's answer to Hyper-Threading. Even if bulldozer outpaced the 2600K, it wouldn't be outpacing it in terms of single threaded performance. I expect an eight core to be 1.5-2x the performance of a similar single threaded performing quad in multithreaded applications. With the way bulldozer is designed, 1 module should be considered 1 core, with two threads. Just like HT.

Hmm....Single threaded performance is mainly determined by Instruction Set Architectures if the generation of micro-architecture isn't in question

An eight core processor will scale to 8x if the program isn't optimized for 8 cores you don't get 8x scaling and if certain ISAs aren't used you don't get good single threaded performance then you have the latency issue(generation of micro-architecture)..but beyond the pointEdited by Seronx - 11/8/11 at 11:44pm

Iv got a 8120 and IMO most the review sites seem to be getting really bad results. I dont know if they are purposefully making it slower or just having bad luck since every bench mark Iv ran seems to be a few points higher then they have given the 8150. Iv only got budget 1333 ram as well.

Iv also got a 1090t and have done some back to back bench marks with it overclocked. 4ghz on the 1090t and 3.8ghz on the 8120, the 8120 gets slightly better results even being 200mhz slower in things that are multi-threaded. But single thread performance is really lacking and its falling behind 8-10%, Prime bench mark is just disgusting and 2ms slower.
Also the 1090t whips the 8120 at floating point and encryption tests by nearly 25%

Iv also received that BSOD a few times but it only happens at certain clock speeds.
3104 causes it since it makes the clock speeds jump up and down between 2.8ghz.
3506, 3441, 3802 and 3874 all cause it with in 20mins of stress testing. But If I raise the FSB clock 1mhz or lower it by 1mhz so the cpu doesnt go to one of those clocks then I never get the BSOD. Im sure there are other clock speeds that cause it but those are the ones I've found so far. Or it could just be a coincidence but setting it back to those speeds does reproduce a BSOD no matter the voltage.

Over all Im happy with the 8120, I was never expecting it to be a monster so I was never disappointed with it.
But what makes me the most happiest about this chip is it beats my mate I7 930 @ 4ghz in passmark overall cpu test by 0.1% while I was only running 3.88ghz. The 1090t was 0.7% slower overall then his when it was at 4.2ghz which was the highest I could push it because of temps.
Now he has been forced to get a new chip to get back ontop of the stats between our friends. Im sure this 8120 has a lot more go in it since Im only running 1.3V to get 3.88ghz